"as the price of the imports exceeds, or falls (hort " of, the price of the exports."

Letius examine the nature of our commercial intercourfe with England, by thefe principles; adopting the futements of Mr. Fofter, which it is to be prefumed no Anti-Unionift will difpute.

In 1785 we exported to the amount of more than two millions and a half to Britain, while the amount of our imports did not exceed one million. In other words, a fettlement of commercial accounts between the fiflands, at that period, left the balance of trade three-fifths in favour of Ireland; and in the interval Best between that time and the prefent, this balance has 1 much encreased, and the British market became ftill more valuable; England's confumption of Irish produce now exceeding the amount of what the fends to us in a greater proportion, than it did in 1785.

But this is hothall not only the balance of trade is in our favour, but the nature and quality of the commercial intercourse is beneficial to this country. It confits in a great degree of the exchange of wrought goods, for raw materials," and of goods, withal, for which, if Britain fhould difcourage their import," Mr. Fofter doubts whether we could find a market elfewhere:" a doubt which is warranted by fact and experience; fince of the entire of our grand and predominant export, (linen) feven eighths go to Britain, and the British settlements.

Britain furnishes us, fays Mr. Fofter, "Salt, by " which

"

* Ibid.

" which we are enabled to prepare our provisions "for the Navy: Hops, which we have not: Coals, Tin, and Bark."

Thus, even if the Balance of trade were not im our favour,-if our exports to Great Britain equalled the value of our imports from that Country, yet ftill the intercourfe would be advantageous to Ireland; inafmuch as a traffic, thus confifting of the exchange of our manufactures for raw materials, would provide a market for the labour which we already had expended, at the fame time that it fupplied materials for new industry and it would not alter the cafe, to afcertain that in preparing the ar ticles which we thus imported, fome labour had been employed in England. Still the principle would not be affected: we should still be finding vent for Irifh manufacture, and supplying ourselves with the materials of fresh industry. "But thefe articles "conftitute more than half of what is fent us.”* Therefore merely to calculate the amount of the commercial balance in our favour, is by no means to eftimate juftly the value of our trade with Britain. On the contrary, it admits of doubt, whether we ought not, in cafting up our imports, to deduct all articles of the nature of raw materials; and strike the balance on a mere comparison of the amount of exported and imported manufactures. Indeed, to controvert this principle, would be impliedly to infift on the value of that kind of trade, which, in virtue of our want of Capital, we now poffefs; and which consists for example, in the export of our Hides,

Q

Mr. Fofter.

Hides, and re-importation of them in the form of leather: a fort of Commerce, which we do not need the authority of Mr. Paley for pronouncing to be of the most disadvantageous defcription; and which I admit is likely to be leffened, indeed annihilated, by Union.

But above all, I do not fear that this doctrine of mine will be opposed by Mr. Fofter; who fully concedes my principle, when he reprefents our provifions, (thofe articles of prime neceflity, which we have the kindness to fend to England,) as mere raw materials, (for the manufacture of able-bodied feamen I prefume;) and thus adduces an argument, which he I had refuted by anticipation, when (in 1785) he defcribed the falt which we imported, as a fort of raw Praw material, neceffary for the curing and manufacture of our provision.

Another circumstance, urged by Mr. Fofter, ought not to be forgotten; viz. that we raise a revenue on what we import from Britain: thus making that country (as it strikes me) contribute to the exSucking pence of the Irish Government: for if it be faid that the duty is paid by the confumer, I anfwer that England imports more than the exports, he is ultimately that confumer.

as

But these allowances may all be waved; and even (delufively) ftating the balance of trade between the countries, in the most unfavourable way to Ireland, we fhall find this country a gainer by the intercourse, to the amount of above two millions yearly.

Having

This confequence ftrikes me on the fudden. I fhall not therefore answer for the truth of the principle; but it seems to me to be a found one.

Having thus fhewn the value of our commercial intercourfe with Britain, (a value refulting as well from the quality of what we import, as from the amount of our exports) it remains to enquire whether the advan tages of this commerce be at prefent precarious; and would by Union be irrevocably fecured.

The continuance of a fyftem, to which Great Bri-" tain is not bound by any specific compact to adhere, it requires no argument to prove, must be precarious. Depending upon the mere pleafure of that country," it may be abandoned on grounds of real, or miltaken policy; and is even liable to be relinquished, from irritation or caprice.

I have heard it afferted, I admit, that the linen trade of Ireland refts on no fuch infecure foundation, but that on the contrary, its encouragement is the mere performance of an agreement. But this alledged covenant has eluded my ftricteft inveftigation and I must crave oyer of that contract, which you charge the British minifter with having denied. Litera fcripta manet: if the treaty has exiftence, it may be found.

But the fact is, that it is a mere creature of the imagination one of the phantoms conjured up by your party, against Union. This branch of Irish trade, in reality, depends upon the duties which Great Britain impofes on foreign linens; and the bounties which the grants on the export of thofe, which have been manufactured in this country.

I The truth of the above pofition cannot be difputed; and is in fact confeffed by Mr. Fofter and yourself,

when,

when, evading the real queftion, you discuss what take to be fufficiently immaterial, namely, whether thofe bounties were granted for the fake of Ireland.

That the British Legiflature may repeal provifions which they have themselves made, is a propofition too felf-evident for proof; nor is the inference less manifeft, viz, that the duration of our present commercial benefits, though it may be likely, yet is not secure,

That vifionary Compact on which Mr. Fofter relies, he will not affert to have been entered into fince.1785. At that period therefore, our trade was not lefs fecure than it is at the prefent day; and every argument which proved the expediency of concluding an advantageous commercial agreement, then, will a fortiori recommend the entering into a ftill more beneficial treaty now. I therefore shall not prefume to add to Mr. Fofter's conclufive reafoning, in favour of Union, (confidered in a commerciał point of view;) or attempt to fhew that an adjust"ment, which for ever confirms all the advantages હે we derive from our linen trade, and incapacitates England from making any law that can be injuri "ous to it," fhould be eagerly embraced by all who regard that trade; but fhall merely obferve that the Compact for which he argued fo ftrongly then, has not been entered into fince; and (with additional advantages) is offered now.

4

I fhall

See Mr. Fofter's Speech on Mr, Orde's Commercial Bill,